Studies of the Relationship of US Power and Influence on the UNGA

France 2866 6617 12531 9495 21149 26261 21776 32984

Germany 2669 6008 11688 9062 21551 30891 23076 33162

Japan 1959 4496 9098 11225 24605 42105 37361 36501

United Kingdom 2255 4222 9655 8133 17434 19658 24514 35718

United States 4878 7376 11991 17229 22530 27234 34364 39650

USSR (Former) 1659 2569 3498 3337 3840 2694 1772 4047

Western Europe 2744 6376 12253 9408 21677 29359 23152 34203

the US has had less need to develop or rely on its diplomatic skills than have smaller or medium powers.” Luck cites the words of Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the UN, to describe US power and its advantage in imposing its will on other countries. “Like in Roman times, they have no diplomacy…you don’t need diplomacy if you are so powerful.”¹¹⁴

Luck then examined the influence of US power in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). “Given the imbalance of power, the founders of the United Nations, well aware of the dilemma of trying to reconcile in its decision making processes the realities of power and principle of universality, tried to have it both ways.¹¹⁵” Actually, the UNGA is a very open organization, reflecting the principle of universality. As theoretically specified in Chapter One, the increasing openness of an international organization will lead to a decline in a great power’s influence on the organization. However, by using its power to threaten or lobby other countries, the US can still exert substantial influence on the UNGA during its prosperous periods. Luck’s discourse is very elaborate and interesting. He cites the words of Winston Churchill, “it is anomalous that the vote or prejudice of any small country should affect events involving populations many times exceeding their numbers, and should affect them as self-advantage or momentary self-advantage may direct.”¹¹⁶

Luck notes the relationship between relative power declining and influence on the UNGA decreasing during the late 1960s and the 1970s. He also cites many useful arguments that enhance his viewpoint that voting power distribution deviated too much from material power distribution during that period, and thus the openness of the UNGA should be changed to reflect the distribution of power. Of course, as defined in Chapter One, openness is one of the basic organizing principles, and is to some extent independent of power distribution. Yet, we can still review some of Luck’s discourse and citations to understand their views on the relative decline of the US in the 1960s and 1970s. Luck cites the speech of US Ambassador Stevenson in 1963. “The United States does not own or control the United Nations. It is not a wing of the State Department. We are no more and no less than the most influential of the 110 members. If we were less, we would be failing to exert the influence of freedom’s leader; if we were more, we would destroy the effectiveness of the United

114 Barbara Crossette. “Boutros-Ghali vs. ‘Goliath’: His Account,” New York Times, Nov. 20, 1996, quoted from Edward C. Luck, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization 1919-1999, pp .28-29.

115 Edward C. Luck, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization 1919-1999, p. 29.

116 Winston Churchill, address of July 31, 1957, reprinted in American Bar Association Journal 43 (October 1957), quoted from Edward C. Luck, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization 1919-1999, p.33.

Nations, which depends precisely on the fact that it is not an arm of the United States or of any other government, but a truly international organization, no better or worse than the agreements which can be reached by the controlling majorities of its members.”¹¹⁷

For the reform of the UNGA, Luck has reviewed the arguments of Henry Lodge in 1967 to explain this issue. “Remember that the General Assembly is not an accurate mirror of world opinion and that equality in voting as between large and small nations has created such a sense of injustice that, although well aware of the difficulties, I support the proposition that the US be changed so that voting more nearly corresponds with the ability to carry out the things which are voted.” “Less than one tenth of one percent of the budget…should become an associate member” without vote, and that

“half of the ten elected seats in the Security Council should be rotated among the larger states.”¹¹⁸ According to such a plan, the voting power distribution inside the UNGA and Security Council would directly reflect material power distribution. Indeed, the openness of the UNGA has harmed US influence. These scholars were trying to revise the openness of international organizations to counteract the effect of the decline in hegemonic power. In this way, Luck has directly and extensively touched on the relationship between US power and its influence on international organizations.

Richard Bissell is another important scholar on the US relationship with the United Nations. He has examined the changes inside the UN, the declining influence of the hegemon in the UNGA, and many other specialized agencies. “Over time, the specialized agencies have increasingly come under the watchful eye of the General Assembly, not so much regarding their performance on mandated issues, but concerning their conformity to political resolutions of the General Assembly. Thus, the rising hostility to Israel and to South Africa in the specialized agencies trailed the growth of hostility in the General Assembly. In addition, the transformation of economic issues (such as energy) into issues of ‘high politics’ has led to their being considered by the General Assembly. The United States, of all major developed countries, is perhaps least willing to accept such a shift in the international

117 Adlai E. Stevenson, Looking Outward: Years of Crisis at the United Nations, ed. Robert L. and Selma Schiffer (Harper & Row, 1963), quoted from Edward C. Luck, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization 1919-1999, p 20.

118 Quoted from Edward C. Luck, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization 1919-1999, p.

32.

policymaking environment.”¹¹⁹

Bissell refers to the relationship between America’s power and its influence. In his view, the US uses many instruments (especially financial means) to enhance its influence on the UN. For instance, he has noted that, “in September 1978, Congress placed a restriction on funds appropriated for US assessed contribution to UN agencies, prohibiting their use for technical assistance activities (the Helms Amendment). The reason the US Congress was dissatisfied with the UN could be generalized as followed: the loss of the US and Western European controlling influence in the Organization, disagreement with various political actions of the General Assembly, the use of the United Nations by the developing countries to bring about a redistribution of wealth and power through the creation of a New International Economic Order, the nature of financing for technical assistance programs, dissatisfaction with recent decisions of the Committee on Contribution of the General Assembly, and finally, the size and growth rate of the budgets of the UN and the specialized agencies.¹²⁰ The above-mentioned causes could also show us a great deal about US anxiety over its waning influence on these organizations. The hegemon has tried to use its power to consolidate its substantial influence on the UNGA, with financial means being the primary instrument.